Across many jurisdictions, educational policies have intensified the practicum component of initial teacher education (ITE), and school teachers are called to work with preservice teachers (PST) in a mentoring capacity. In that capacity, classroom teachers are asked to become teacher educators as they engage in institutionalized interactions with preservice teachers to contribute to their professional learning (Nesje and Lejonberg, 2022). The objective of this study is to examine the work of teachers in Chile who mentor preservice teachers (PST) who are placed in their classrooms as part of a practicum course. Using the conceptual framework describing seven domains of quality mentoring developed by Ellis and collaborators (2020), qualitative data analysis seeks to identify affordances, constraints, and tensions in mentoring work identified by 62 mentor elementary and secondary teachers distributed in 11 schools.

In Chile, accreditation requirements specify that initial teacher education (ITE) programs must develop partnerships with schools to implement a sequence of early and progressive practicum courses. A university-based faculty assigned to the practicum course is typically responsible for monitoring and supporting PSTs and their mentor teachers (Barahona, 2019). This faculty is expected to act as a boundary broker, introducing elements of the ITE program and the specific practicum requirements into the work of mentor teachers and their classrooms (Author, 2015).  

Ellis et al. (2020) proposed a 7-domain typology of high-quality mentoring and mentors of preservice teachers. This typology was developed based on a literature review including 70 articles examining mentoring relationships. Domain 1 refers to the characteristics of a productive collaboration between the university and mentor teachers. Domain 2 refers to the motivational factors that mobilize mentor teachers' interactions with PSTs and their preparation and experiences to enact the role flexibly. Domain 3 refers to the relational dimension of mentoring that allows for reflective conversations. Domain 4 addresses the instrumental aspects or tools through which mentors support PSTs’ learning, such as providing feedback on lesson plans or observing PSTs delivering a lesson. Domain 5 involves modeling effective teaching,  helping PSTs connect theory and practice, and developing a shared language and expectations by framing practice in the context of professional standards. Domain 6 relates to maintaining a welcoming socio-professional context and providing emotional support to PSTs. Mentors help PSTs negotiate conflicts and establish professional relations with other school personnel, supporting organizational socialization. Domain 7 refers to adopting a progressive mindset and mentor’s openness to new ideas concerning curricula, instruction, and assessment practices that PST might want to try out in the classroom.

The tasks of mentoring represent demands, and mentor teachers (as well as PST) recognize and respond to them by using “cultural (e.g., ideas, values, beliefs), structural (e.g., relationships, roles, power, trust), or material (e.g., resources, physical environment) conditions” (Schaap et al., 2019, p. 815). These affordances affect classroom teachers’ participation in mentoring activities as they perceive, interpret, and actively shape such affordances. When negotiating demands and constraints, tensions may arise due to unclear expectations, incomplete information, or conflicting roles and values. According to Schaap et al., these tensions are usually associated with negative emotions.

Research questions

1. What affordances (i.e., enablers) do mentor teachers report when enacting activities associated with the seven domains of quality mentoring proposed by Ellis et al. (2020)?
2. What constraints (i.e., barriers) do mentor teachers report when enacting activities associated with the seven domains of quality mentoring proposed by Ellis et al. (2020)?
3. What are the tensions reported when enacting activities associated with the seven domains of quality mentoring proposed by Ellis et al. (2020)?

Design Data used to answer the research questions were drawn from the second stage of a more extensive study examining how school practitioners understood and participated in the practicum component of initial teacher preparation in Chile. The larger study involved a sequential mixed-method design. In the first stage, a survey was distributed to 91 schools serving as practicum sites, and in the second stage, group interviews were conducted with teachers in 11 of these schools. Participants A total of 62 mentor teachers participated in group interviews, 15 of whom were males. Slightly less than half (n=29) were taught in a public municipal school, 23 in a private school financed through a state voucher, and 10 in a private school fully funded by parents. They averaged ten years of teaching experience, ranging from three to 33 years. Over the last two years, they had mentored four PSTs on average. Among participants, 28 taught in secondary grades, and the remaining in elementary classrooms. Instruments and procedures A flexible interview protocol was developed to address the following topics and questions: • Experiences with their mentor teacher when completing their ITE program. • What is the main idea you want to convey to PSTs? • Why do you want to convey that idea? • Factors that facilitate or create obstacles to mentoring • Mechanisms for coordination and alignment with the university Group size ranged from three to eight teachers. Audio-taped interviews were conducted at the school and lasted about 90 minutes. All participants signed an informed consent approved by the researchers´ institutional ethics review board and were offered an incentive of a $5 gift certificate. Data analysis A thematic analysis of the transcripts was conducted following the steps proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). A priori, theory-driven codes were defined addressing elements of the seven domains proposed by Ellis et al. (2020).Within each domain, these codes were grouped to address the themes of the research questions: (a) affordances, (b) constraints, and (c) tensions in mentoring. In the full paper, interview excerpts will be provided to illustrate these domains and themes.

Mentor teachers worked with pre-service teachers from different universities and completing different courses in the practicum component of ITE programs. They identified three main affordances. First, their teaching experiences and motivation to contribute to preparing the next generation of teachers. Second, engaging in joint work with the university-based practicum instructor was an essential support for the work entailed in mentoring. Learning from PST motivated mentors’ engagement. The lack of collaboration and coordination with the university was a key constraint. Participants repeatedly provided examples expressing concerns and frustration about the absence of the university supervisor in their classrooms, restricted opportunities for joint work, and an absence of preparation that would inform them about their role and how to support PSTs’ learning to teach. Mentors noted a distance between the theories learned at the university and the practices that worked well with their pupils. Tensions emerged when mentors had to negotiate their double responsibilities toward pupils’ and PSTs’ learning; which was most often resolved by prioritizing their teacher role over their mentor role (Jasper et al., 2014). Tensions also emerged when the feedback they provided to PST was ignored by the university and PST and when it was not received constructively by the PST, generating negative feelings. Results highlight the importance of strengthening these affordances through support groups where mentors, PSTs, and university supervisors reflect, encourage, and guide each other‘s practices (Stanulis and Russell, 2000). Joint work can also strengthen mentor teachers’ development of a teacher-educator identity (Andreasen et al., 2019).

Andreasen, J.K., Bjørndal, C.R.P., and Kovač, V.B. (2019). Being a teacher and teacher educator: The antecedents of teacher educator identity among mentor teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 281 -291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.011 Author, 2015. Barahona, M. (2019). What matters to supervisors and is this reflected in what they do? Analysing the work of university supervisors of the practicum. Journal of Education for Teaching, 45:3, 262–276. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, 77–101. Ellis, N. J., Alonzo, D., y Nguyen, H. T. M. (2020). Elements of a quality pre-service teacher mentor: A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 92, 103072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103072 Jaspers, W. M., Meijer, P. C., Prins, F., & Wubbels, T. (2014). Mentor teachers: Their perceived possibilities and challenges as mentor and teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.005 Nesje, K., & Lejonberg, E. (2022). Tools for the school-based mentoring of pre-service teachers: A scoping review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 111, 103609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103609 Schaap, H., Louws, M., Meirink, J., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., Van Der Want, A., Zuiker, I., Zwart, R., & Meijer, P. (2019). Tensions experienced by teachers when participating in a professional learning community. Professional Development in Education, 45(5), 814–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1547781 Stanulis, R. N., and Russell, D. (2000). “Jumping in’: Trust and communication in mentoring student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 16:1, 65–80.